It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Your Founding Fathers were commies.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:25 PM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

I have enjoyed watching the discussion

It reminded me of a heavyweight bout

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

I enjoy a debate.And watching one.

I can be a little outrageous at times so if you see me around...go easy

Im here to learn

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:16 AM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

and this is exactly what makes debating, fun

usually, we learn something.

i agree that the compromise could have and likely should have been done differently, but, you must keep in mind that slavery was an industry and was viewed as such. (i don't agree with it, but it was what it was)

for more details about "stuff" going on currently in Kentucky and a relative thread to the topics being discussed here, see

its all intertwined and no matter how many ways it's sliced, diced and re-written ... we have the power to change it ... we did (not the government) ... and we should continue to when necessary.

i do my best to avoid that forum, it'll get me in trouble

i've certainly enjoyed our banter here and i'm glad y'all are enriching yourselves with knowledge, nothing better could come of it

@ theovermensch - thanks for the compliment and don't be afraid to jump in with both feet as we are all equals and learning isn't the same for everyone.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by Honor93

Text @ theovermensch - thanks for the compliment

I am sure I am not equal in relation to knowledge on the constitution. (:

Text slavery was an industry

#My two cents on the slave trade though is I think about Huck in Twains 'Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' and how Hucks thinking says alot about society at the time.Especially when he is debating wether he should turn Jim in.The book was written 100 years after the 3/5 compromise
but society back then was backward is for sure and I think it isnt a blemish on ones character if they were a slave owner.Like Washington or Jefferson may be hypocrites but I think slave ownership was just accepted or conveniently ignored..

Text Wiencek begins his exploration of Washington's relation to slavery with an account of the president's final will, which freed all of his human "property." It did so in terms that were as explicit, and as binding on his family, as legal language could make them. This reveals not only a firm resolve on Washington's part, but an awareness that his heirs would otherwise try to violate his intent. How did he reach the decision to release his slaves after a lifetime of accepting the old arrangement? Indeed, for a gentleman-farmer like Washington, slavery was not only a fact of economic life but something woven into the very fabric of identity, for one's sense of honor involved knowing how to "handle" one's slaves.

like how this guy says "fact of economic life".He goes on to say that he thinks Washingtons opinion was society would change in time. It made me think of us 'advanced consumers' of the west and how we are all slave owners when we buy an iphone or a pair of Nikes.Its easy not to think of the exploitation employed by the companies because it isnt our fault,and its the way it is.
Anyway like I said,I have enjoyed.Its interesting looking at the motivations of sigificant people throughout history and how they may differ from the way they are sold to us.
edit on 4-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo

new topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in